The mancityfans.net football forum

So why was it disallowed?

I was talking to my mate and all we could come up with was the guy interfered with play when he swerved out of the way of the ball. If he didn't then the ball hits him and he's offside, by him ducking/swerving he has interfered with play by allowing the ball past him. Apart from that fuck knows why it was disallowed....

Dronny wrote:So why was it disallowed? I was talking to my mate and all we could come up with was the guy interfered with play when he swerved out of the way of the ball. If he didn't then the ball hits him and he's offside, by him ducking/swerving he has interfered with play by allowing the ball past him. Apart from that fuck knows why it was disallowed....

It was disallowed for two reasons. the first was the ref was of the view that at least one NUFC player was interfering in the line of sight of hart and therefore interfering with play. the second was Pardew is an irritating self righteous twunt and needed winding up good and proper - ditto those five bellied shirtless horse punching eastern version of the scousers

Evenmydoghatesunited wrote: It was disallowed for two reasons. the first was the ref was of the view that at least one NUFC player was interfering in the line of sight of hart and therefore interfering with play. the second was Pardew is an irritating self righteous twunt and needed winding up good and proper - ditto those five bellied shirtless horse punching eastern version of the scousers

Your second reason holds more water Even..... mate!!!

Newcastle fucking NIL !!!! End of !!!!!

Even more so fucking deliberately obvious was the fact that the fucking shite ref lost the fucking plot completely resulting in a key MCFC player getting seriously injured and no fucking red card ????? WTF ????? and that on top of Cabaye should have been sent off for two yellows and some other useless twat ........ no way should Newcastle have had 11 on the pitch at full time !!!!!! 9 or even 8 absolutely ....... the ref was a fucking disgrace !!!!

City64 wrote:Newcastle fucking NIL !!!! End of !!!!!

Even more so fucking deliberately obvious was the fact that the fucking shite ref lost the fucking plot completely resulting in a key MCFC player getting seriously injured and no fucking red card ????? WTF ????? and that on top of Cabaye should have been sent off for two yellows and some other useless twat ........ no way should Newcastle have had 11 on the pitch at full time !!!!!! 9 or even 8 absolutely ....... the ref was a fucking disgrace !!!!

Corectamundo. Don't really care why it was disallowed but I know if we scored that and had it disallowed the forums would have melted down by now.

It was disallowed for offside.

How many players are actually allowed to stand in an offside position between the ball & the goal before it's meant to be offside ?

If they had all been stood to the left or right (like the third offside player was), or behind the keeper even, then fair enough but two of them are directly in front of the ball.

One of them moved to let it in. Is that not 'seeking to gain an advantage' ?

If it hits him & Hart has dived, it goes in the other corner.

What is Hart meant to do ? Check to see if he's offside whilst the ball is travelling & then dive, or wait to see if it hits him & then save the resulting deflection if it does ?

Either way, how the fuck is it not interfering with play ? Someone explain it to me.

Pardew's obsessed with how clean a strike it was and that Hart wouldn't have saved it anyway. That's completely irrelevant. If a player was offside and interfering with play ( ie moving out the way of the shot FFS) it's offside. If not you're asking a referee to judge whether in the absence of that player the keeper would have saved it or not which is absurd and more important not what the rules say. Ridiculous sour grapes. I didn't hear one word of concern about Nasri who might miss the World Cup because of the thuggish behaviour of one of his players. His total loss of self control helped wind up his players and got them scything in all over the pitch in the second half. To that extent he bears some responsibility for the Nasri injury. He also let rip at Pellegini in a foul mouthed rant.

Cunt.

He was in the path of the ball for most of its flight. In addition, Hart knew he was there, so he would have been positioning himself taking the Barcode into account. Got to be interfering so its offside.

Ted Hughes wrote:It was disallowed for offside.

How many players are actually allowed to stand in an offside position between the ball & the goal before it's meant to be offside ?

If they had all been stood to the left or right (like the third offside player was), or behind the keeper even, then fair enough but two of them are directly in front of the ball.

One of them moved to let it in. Is that not 'seeking to gain an advantage' ?

If it hits him & Hart has dived, it goes in the other corner.

What is Hart meant to do ? Check to see if he's offside whilst the ball is travelling & then dive, or wait to see if it hits him & then save the resulting deflection if it does ?

Either way, how the fuck is it not interfering with play ? Someone explain it to me.

I'm really unsure on whether it should have stood.
I know if it was us having that goal disallowed I'd be furious but I can kind of see why it was disallowed.

To me, it didn't look like Gouffran obstructed Hart's view really. If he was stood right infront of Hart then yes but he was stood off to the side.
Also, when a keeper sees a shot fired, they don't have time to think 'What happens if the shot takes a deflection' and 'I'll wait to see if it gets a deflection before I dive' They generally just dive in the direction of the shot. That's why keepers are nearly always wrong footed by deflections.

It all imo depends on whether moving out the way counts as 'interfering with play'.

Only way I can sum it up is I see why it was disallowed but would have been furious if it was us on the receiving end of that decision.

Sky says it wasn't offside so that's good enough for me...lol fucking lol at the lot of them, waste of fresh air them muppets

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:
Corectamundo. Don't really care why it was disallowed but I know if we scored that and had it disallowed the forums would have melted down by now.

Very true. It was a cock up to disallow it imo. The rules for offside are so grey with phases of play (WTF) that almost invariably unless a player touches the ball a goal stands. If that had been Kola we'd all have been whinging. Deep down you know you would. This does not however, excuse in any way, the thuggish antics that followed. Punishments should be swift and harsh. Neither I suspect, will be forthcoming

Of course moving out of the way is interfering with play. What the fuck else is it? The rule is designed to distinguish being active or passive. If you take a physical action ie move out of the way you can hardly say you were passive.

nottsblue wrote:

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:
Corectamundo. Don't really care why it was disallowed but I know if we scored that and had it disallowed the forums would have melted down by now.

Very true. It was a cock up to disallow it imo. The rules for offside are so grey with phases of play (WTF) that almost invariably unless a player touches the ball a goal stands. If that had been Kola we'd all have been whinging. Deep down you know you would. This does not however, excuse in any way, the thuggish antics that followed. Punishments should be swift and harsh. Neither I suspect, will be forthcoming

That's the biggest issue imo. Yes the goal was (probably) disallowed unfairly but their reaction from the manager and players is inexcusable.
Roy Keane would have been proud of that Mbiwa tackle. Disgraceful. Also how did Cabaye not get sent off? He was already on a yellow and made two clattering tackles getting nowhere near the ball either time. Then Santon throws himself to the ground after Zaba kicked fresh air to try and get him sent off.

From precedence that goal should've been allowed. However, I'm laughing my cock off at the fact it angered Pardew so much that it all becomes irrelevent ;-)

Beefymcfc wrote:From precedence that goal should've been allowed. However, I'm laughing my cock off at the fact it angered Pardew so much that it all becomes irrelevent ;-)

You should get that seen to...

Bridge'srightfoot wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:It was disallowed for offside.

How many players are actually allowed to stand in an offside position between the ball & the goal before it's meant to be offside ?

If they had all been stood to the left or right (like the third offside player was), or behind the keeper even, then fair enough but two of them are directly in front of the ball.

One of them moved to let it in. Is that not 'seeking to gain an advantage' ?

If it hits him & Hart has dived, it goes in the other corner.

What is Hart meant to do ? Check to see if he's offside whilst the ball is travelling & then dive, or wait to see if it hits him & then save the resulting deflection if it does ?

Either way, how the fuck is it not interfering with play ? Someone explain it to me.

I'm really unsure on whether it should have stood.
I know if it was us having that goal disallowed I'd be furious but I can kind of see why it was disallowed.

To me, it didn't look like Gouffran obstructed Hart's view really. If he was stood right infront of Hart then yes but he was stood off to the side.
Also, when a keeper sees a shot fired, they don't have time to think 'What happens if the shot takes a deflection' and 'I'll wait to see if it gets a deflection before I dive' They generally just dive in the direction of the shot. That's why keepers are nearly always wrong footed by deflections.

It all imo depends on whether moving out the way counts as 'interfering with play'.

Only way I can sum it up is I see why it was disallowed but would have been furious if it was us on the receiving end of that decision.

What they 'generally' do isn't the point. Sometimes they aren't wrong footed by deflections, they react.

A bloke stood directly in the path of the ball as it heads toward goal, is likely to cause a slowness of reaction one way or the other & that's interfering with play. If he stands still ignores the ball & doesn't seek to gain an advantage, the ball hits him & he's offside, so Hart doesn't even need to save it.

I'm sure they will twist this, but if that's Germany v England & Klose ducking out of the way, in every media outlet over here he's off fucking side.

"Interfering with an opponent” means:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to
play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the
goalkeeper’s line of vision or movement
making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion
of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent•
the opponent must be reasonably close to the play so
that the blocking, deceiving or distracting makes a
difference

Off fucking side

3 players offside.....simples

blues2win wrote:Of course moving out of the way is interfering with play. What the fuck else is it? The rule is designed to distinguish being active or passive. If you take a physical action ie move out of the way you can hardly say you were passive.

This
but this type of call is 50/50 and will always be controversial. Thats Football. Top of the tables snitches.

Ted Hughes wrote: ....Off fucking side

I think any right minded footballing person would say that they were offside but the rationale seems to be that if they're not in direct contact with the ball then it's not offside. How many times have we seen them given and that has set the standard even if the regs are not being exacted.

Still laughing though, Pardew must be burning up after that.

Interfering or not. You decide?